Dostoevsky On Feminism

”So, listen to me. My speech will be much shorter than yours. I want to tell you this: all that you told me now was very stupid and banal. Do you understand me? It was stupid. It would be better to dispense with you, in this matter, but your family, your children and your kitchen cannot survive without a woman … a woman has only one main purpose in life: to be a wife and a mother … there is no, there was no, and there will not be any other ‘social purpose’ of a woman. This is all stupidity, senseless talk, and gibberish. All that you have told me here is nonsense, do you hear me? It was nonsense, and I am not going to say anything else to you.”

CH on feminism:

When men become as women, and women as men, will you know the end days are upon you.

as he is chiefly driven by
HONOR and TRUTHZ
and also ahs da artistic soul to deliver it with
HUMOR
and REASON
and funnieiz dat make da GBFM go
zlzlzoozolzloozozooozozololzlozloz
all over my keybordz in da same wayz
my lsotsa sockas goesz
gizzigizzzziallaizlzzizlzi
all over her FACE

Western world is a sexual jungle now. Or any other feminized nation for that matter. Laws of jungle apply. Sexually rich get richer, poor get bigger manboobs. Attractive men need to give very little to obtain sex. Attractive men with fame need to give nothing. Tigers and Lions kill and eat whoever they want wherever they want.

When women are in check, you are in a sexual society. There are rules. Monogamy stands a chance.

Today’s women have no restraint over their sexual impulses… no one’s checking their urges and temptations… and as a result they hop the carousel, and then when the wall approaches, must settle for the manboobed Beta.

Sure, it is an unfair and unjust world for the hapless beta. But a lot of those betas are unwilling to sack up and adapt to the new world order. They are scared; scared because the world no longer admires or appreciates the productive cogs it so desperately needs.

Bit of an oversimplification… There are quite a few excellent female scientists out there and I really hate to think how many geniuses and scientific break throughs we have missed over the years because of the misguided idea that women can’t be anything but mothers and wives

And the number of women that are virgins post-puberty available for marriage is incredibly small. This means those men who do marry are guarantied being somewhere around fifth in line…. or worse. Want greater fidelity? Make husbands first in line instead. Of course this would bring back the ideas of guilt and shame for both parties, but hey, you want to drop that kind of response expect to get called on it.

CH is aligned with history, sure, but not with facts. Look at the countries where women are only expected to be wives and mothers. They are absolute crap. All of them- 100% of them.

And look at the countries where women are expected to act as independent humans first and foremost, and those countries are called the first world. Once Scandanavia expected women to be wives and mothers only. And back then it was crap too. Scandanavia was then equal to the third world now. Full of disease and violence and oppression.

Since that time, no new element has been discovered. There is nothing in this generation of the world that did not exist 1000 years ago, but now we live on average till 80 years and we live in relative peace, not fighting hundred years war over which invisible man in the sky is better.

The world is better with women earning for themselves and in public life. That’s not even my opinion. That’s an observable fact unless your definition of ‘better’ is something that cannot be measured in any normal way. There is no sense in believing what conflicts with observable fact. But then again, I fail to see how women and men actually act in identical ways in modern society. They are not the same, but they are both independent. It’s better this way. Don’t take my word for it. Look at any civilized measure of a nation.

That doesn’t reflect a historical timeline properly. Women started controlling their own wages in the industrial revolution in the 19th centiry- when the world was still 3rd world. They got the vote in the US in the early 20th century. Since that time, we have progressed considerably- after women’s won the most important of their rights. So no, it is not that 3rd world countries cannot afford to give women rights. It is that they remain backward because they insist on holding women back.

Women have received no rights they didn’t have already after being allowed to pick which dick they wish to suck the most.

Voting isn’t a right. It’s something most people, women especially, should not be allowed to do.

Women are only needed by Leftist politicians. What is first on the list of demands by the Fascists?

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

They know how useful you idiots are when your panties are soaking and legs trembling with fear, mind racing from hysteria.

The only thing required of women, for the continuation of a civilization, is to give birth to and raise children. We don’t need women in mini skirts, mastering PowerPoint, filing sexual harrassment claims.

But maybe you’re right. Maybe Afghanistan would suddenly be exploring the solar system if only they had more CEO’s.

Wow, talk about oversimplifying history. You think think that women getting the right to vote is what made the American standard of living increase and not the inventions of Ford, Tesla, Edison, Fleming, and the Wright brothers?

You also point to women losing their rights was the reason Afghanistan’s standard of living went down. You don’t think two decade long wars against two Superpowers contributed? What country would not be an absolute shithole if they were bombed to the stone age by the USSR for ten years, and then twenty years later bombed into the Paleozoic era by the United States.

Are you sure we’re better off because women bring sexual politics into our workplaces and play the games with full social awareness, but with an utter lack of those brilliant unconventional moments that one gets from men?

You can also observe the reverse. You can see countries that become worse when they start to restrict women. Afghanistan is the clear example of this. In the 60s, it is said it was comparable to New Zealand in development. Now it is one of the poorest and most backward countries in the world with one of the lowest life expectancies in the world. That’s how it goes- restricting women is equivalent to chaining a nation to the bottom.

This blog has reinforced these observations of mine. The manosphere is full of angry angry men that put each other down, refuse to show empathy even when people are desperate for it and judge people according to some hateful stereotype instead of what they are actually saying- the manosphere looks exactly like the vicious intolerant war ridden world where men rule. It can be observed here and observed out in countries where women have little power.

It is that they remain backward because they insist on holding women back.

From what? And who holds them back? Certainly not the men in those countries. The average man in the countries you think of as third world have much harder lives than the average woman.

The primary problem I’ve found with women is their myopia. They see women suffering and think men are oppressing them. I have yet to see a feminist actually look at the suffering of men and think that women must be oppressing them. Men and women live in a world where others have expectations of them as individuals and with respect to their genders. Men do, and have always, born the brunt of material responsibilities, whereas women have born the brunt of domestic responsibilities. Weirdly, feminists think that staying home with your kids and keeping a household as you like it is somehow less attractive than sitting in a cubicle all day or sweating in the hot sun.

Uhhh… Afghanistan is a s*** hole because they were invaded by a cruel super power in the 80’s, not because they randomly decided to hold their women down. In fact, compared to what men in Afghanistan today go through, Afghani women have it relatively easy. The occasional one is executed, but they’re not getting bombed, shot and sent to Gitmo en masse like the men are; sorta ironically by our militaries.

“The manosphere is full of angry angry men that put each other down, refuse to show empathy even when people are desperate for it and judge people according to some HATEFUL STEREOTYPE instead of what they are actually saying”

“the manosphere looks exactly like the vicious intolerant war ridden world where men rule.”

You have a correlation and causation problem. And you don’t think decades of war in the region might have contributed to Afghanistan’s decline? Because it’s also possible (and probable) that women’s rights were restricted because the country was getting in deep with all of the conflict, and so retreated to more “traditional” gender roles. Of course, you’re a feminist, so you don’t also see how the restriction in women’s rights had a parallel in the restriction to men’s rights there. Because only women suffer. What was that about empathy again?

This is unmitigated horseshit. Read Marco Polo’s account of his overland journey to China in the 1200’s, when he traveled on foot through Afghanistan. It was just as backwards, warlike, violent, and oppressive as it is today, only it had more flora and fauna (they hadn’t cut down all the trees & killed all the wildlife yet).

There is no point in history when New Zealand and Afghanistan were remotely comparable. Your anecdote simply proves that some 1960’s era researcher was incompetent and incapable of seeing the larger picture.

1. First countries with full rights for women were Communist countries (part of ideology). I know that, I grew up in one of them. These countries, although populated by white Europeans (mostly) were poor during most of the historical period of Communist rule. The extent of of Communist lunacy went so far that in Czechoslovakia a woman was forced to present a ton of papers if she wanted to stay at home & raise a family- the state was so “concerned” that she might be “oppressed”, i.e. not work outside of her home. Of course, their intent was obvious: the enemy was the nuclear family. Just like feminism in liberal democracies. 2. “women’s rights” and affluence have absolutely no correlation. Switzerland has long since been one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and men had allowed their women to vote only in 1970s. As for Scandinavian countries, they have been until 20th C (except for Sweden) among the poorest European countries- for instance, there are more Norwegian-Americans than proper Norwegians: women had contributed to prosperity of these countries not a zilch. It’s just that a confluence of circumstances (long periods of peace; natural wealth; Protestant work ethic; NATO military shield; ..) has produced current wealth in these countries (which is very vulnerable- see the example of the Iceland crisis). 3. all said, it was inevitable that women should become financially independent & that higher education would become real possibility for them. BUT- if they don’t remain WIVES AND MOTHERS first (most of them)- women, as well as a society, are doomed.

I agree with her to an extent. Nations that exercise subjugation of women are often primitive and “unevolved” (though I hate that word) in every other aspect of human social policy. There has been an observable uptick in the quality of life for the common man, at least on a surface level, since women have been unleashed into the realms of men.

My bleak view of human nature informs my opinion here, but if it wasn’t feminism destroying Western culture, it would be another beast, one masculine in nature. We are all animals, and life in civilized society is a constant struggle to subvert our animal natures.

If you think there’s been an observable uptick in the quality of life for the common man in any form then obviously, you’ve never actually seen any place where they women enter the realms of men without already having a strong civilization in place.

Nations that “subjugate” women are neither primitive nor unevolved. They just know that the alternative will completely destroy the fabric of their society.

“Afghanistan is the clear example of this. In the 60s, it is said it was comparable to New Zealand in development.”

Not really (in the 60s lots of Brits emigrated to NZ, very few to Kandahar). In the 60s it was where hippies on the India trail went to get stoned and live cheaply. But it was relatively peaceful – and women had few rights there in the 1960s – or 1860s come to that.

I don’t see all the putdowns between men that you’re talking about. Sure there is some spirited disagreement, but men can roll with those punches and, generally, learn from the experience.

Women seem to want to sanitize the language, thinking it will make for truly more harmonious relations. That’s called Political Correctness and it actually makes for poisonous relations. Like what exist between most women: you hate each other, are jealous, bitchy, backstabbing, etc. Even your friendships with other women are always at risk of devolving into that. That’s the best one can expect with women deciding how communication should be done.

Europe was already an extremely influential part of the world by the 19th century’s beginning (and before), capable of kicking almost everyone else’s ass. The industrial revolution was incentivized by a relatively laissez-faire economical system (nah, it wasn’t perfectly libertarian, but it favored smart risk-takers, and we all know who innovative risk takers are). I don’t know if giving women more rights helped or harmed the progress, but I think the industrial revolution itself had way more to do with that.

Oh, and discovery of oil/gas/coal. Stuff that we soon won’t have anymore.

I’m for women having the same rights simply because it’s fair. You don’t need any other argument.

Women have always worked. It’s only in the 20th century, with the advent of time-saving technologies, that women stopped working as much. Among the very rich (i.e., the aristocratic class), women could afford to do nothing but artistic activities, mothering (which they usually subcontracted to servants) and social entertaining, but for the rest of humanity throughout all of human history, women have worked.

Women picked the crops (which men planted). They raised chickens and eggs (while men raised cattle and goats and pigs). They cared for the children they birthed (not an easy job!). Most of the civilized world throughout history has kept spinning and weaving equipment (looms) inside almost every house — it’s where we get the term “cottage industry” since fabric (a major basic technology) was made exclusively by women and children, inside the home, until industrialization (around 1830).

It was not feminism that freed women from work. It was technology — coal-burning stoves rather than hearths, and eventually all of the electrical appliances. It was these things that allowed middle-class women to emulate the lifestyles of upper class women — not doing (as much) manual labor, and devoting themselves to more intellectual and social pursuits.

As for your view on the economy, you are wrong. The vibrant, growing economies of the world got that way through FREE MARKETS, not through Statism. Feminism depends on (and is an expression of) Statism. Even today, the party that promotes a Statist, top-down, collectivized economy is the same one calling itself “feminist.” That’s no accident.

A vibrant, growing economy (i.e., a free market economy) depends on equal rights, and a respect for property. That’s why I’m all for equal rights.

Unfortunately for feminists, freedom (especially economic freedom) necessarily includes the right to hire and fire anyone at any time, for any reason. It’s called the “Freedom of Association,” and it’s not only a basic human right, but the key to a free market economy.

In a free economy, women work, just like men do. Poor women work as seamstresses (while men work construction). Middle class women work in offices (while men sell things). Upper class women produce TV shows (while men work in finance).

If you want a healthy, advanced economy, where women have the maximum range of economic opportunity to advance themselves, and to have the maximum range of choices to do the kind of work that suits them, and live the kind of lives that they want to live, then you’ll dump feminism. Try getting your mind around the concepts of property, markets and economic freedom.

Everything flows from the industrial revolution — including the mass production of firearms — being the great equalizer that made every man equal to the best trained swordsmen and archers. It was the beginning of the end of universality of kings.

It seems Western Man lost touch with an important part of his masculinity when he forgot how to fight with his bare hands.

The firearm has taken all the fun and all the honor out of war, and left us without this most critical outlet for our masculine instincts. It also brought about the loss of the once rich Western martial arts tradition and cut us off from one of our most important pathways for self-mastery.

Hyperborean, I could not disagree more. I would not glorify war that way. I certainly never felt the lust for proving myself in a battle where I could be maimed or killed.

War is bad for men. Men get killed and hurt there. We now have virtual battles. If you want something without a social component, there are old games like chess, and new ones on the computer, and men tend to excel at those over women.

Frankly, to say that masculinity involves personal risk is getting closer to chivalry and white-knight status than I like. It’s the women who lost something when men stopped “proving” themselves by going to battle for them.

This is a classic case of correlation does not imply causation. Just because the rise of feminism was accompanied by technological advancements, atheism, longevity etc does not mean that feminism caused these things.

Indeed it’s more like the ideology of the Obama administration. Now that we have the potential economic surplus due to technology, they want to ensure we “spread the wealth” even more widely, even to illegal immigrants.

And that technology all came from white men. The exceptions are too rare even to bother to mention.

“Look at the countries where women are only expected to be wives and mothers. They are absolute crap. All of them- 100% of them.”

I guess America in it’s golden era was absolute crap.

If we’re going to oversimplify and make broad statements then listen up sweet cheeks; the only reason women TODAY can afford to waste their time in corporate offices and dick around with the time and emotions of useful men is because their grandmothers and great-grandmothers sacrificed the cock carousel and corporate paper pushing to stay at home, give useful men peace of mind, and raise their kids into productive human beings. If they hadn’t the West would already be in the 2nd world, not just rocketing down into it like it currently is

There is a massive, direct correlation between the attitude and actions of women today (and of the boomer generation) and the decline of the West. When in 30 years North America and Europe is absolute crap what will your theory then be?

30 years if we’re lucky, but yes. And I’m not taking it as given that there’s any causation or even correlation about feminine roles and quality of a society. Doesn’t have to be an oppressive country for women to choose a family role, and coercive countries are crap regardless of women’s roles.

I need to commit this to memory for use in my life though:

“All that you have told me here is nonsense, do you hear me? It was nonsense, and I am not going to say anything else to you.”

You are delusional if you believe women were sweetly dedicated to giving their husbands peace of mind just because they didn’t have jobs. They were as contrary as ever. The TV shows just didn’t admit to that.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any part of the third world is going to overtake the first world if those countries do not prioritize women more. You claim xyz is going to happen in 30 years. There is no evidence for that. As it stands, the more gender traditional of the first world countries (like japan and italy) have the lowest birthrates. The most feminist ones are the ones with the higher birthrates.

You can be a country like Yemen and restrict women, have a birthrate of 7 and remain extremely poor for generation after generation. Or you can accept that it is better when women have decision making power in the world and actually have some technological prowess and a non suicidal birthrate.

End times are not here.This is the most peaceful, prosperous and technologically advancing state humanity has ever seen. It is better now than it was in 1950. It all happened within 100 years of accepting that women should make all decisions for themselves and view themselves as independent ends, not wives and mothers only.

Look if you want to really live by your words then convince women – starting with yourself – to be attracted to more submissive, caring, sensitive beta men. CH didn’t invent that idea that women select for dominant men, he just noticed it. You want to change it? Then maybe start by ditching your fantasy soldier boyfriend and dating a guy who dresses up like women for holloween, owns cats, and has a degree in women’s studies. Bonus points if he’s white and overweight and has a blog. When women start doing that, I’ll start believing all the nonsense about how they want to be “free” and…whatever else.

Look, you clearly have been reading blogs on the manosphere for quite some time. You see all the same scientific studies, the same economic stats, the same articles that everyone else on here has. I’m not going to spend 5 hours linking articles refuting every one of your points written by people with a singular IQ higher then every commentator here combined.

(For newbs new to the Manosphere reading this, I suggest acquainting yourself with Dalrock’s blog, http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ It’s a little church-y but the articles are thoroughly researched and usually linked from legitimate sources)

The only reason I can see you still saying the things you do is;

1) You’re a very dedicated (and by consequence, very sad) troll.

2) You’re an attention depraved unattractive misandrist.

or 3) You’re an attractive, passionate feminist who’s determined to add her beliefs to the debate and utterly unafraid of the angry misanthropist who want to bring you down.

Now, I’m assuming it’s number 3. And it sucks to debate online, so inconvenient, so many people spitting out thoughtless vitriol; you can’t really appreciate the whole of a person through a computer screen. If you live in Winnipeg we should meet up somewhere and have a pleasant face to face debate, maybe a few drinks. You like blue cheese? I have a hunk that’s just dying to be diced up into a nice salad.

I guess the reason I’m such a cynical PUA cad is because I’ve yet to meet a woman who’s mind was a beautiful as her body. If you think you’re that woman, how about them digits?

I am 3. I live in nyc but I LOVE Canada. I love summer because I get to go there. If things don’t work out with my soldier love, maybe ill come to you. Can we go to national and provincial parks every weekend? One of my goals in life is to see most every national park in canada.

Actually, @depressed_danny, you are seeing why so many organizations have been “men only”. Women, at times, will take an opportunity to draw attention to themselves, turn the attention into drama, and turn the drama into power. All of the back and forth to @feministx is like red-meat to her.

“End times are not here.This is the most peaceful, prosperous and technologically advancing state humanity has ever seen. It is better now than it was in 1950.”

Really?

I suggest you take a look at the levels of public debt in western society, and have a think about how it is being pushed ever higher by the positivist experiment in supplanting the nuclear family with the ‘daddy state’.

The current young generation are already aware that they will not have the same standards of living as their parents. That is not something that could be said about the 50s.

All it will take is one more recession in the next few years and this unsustainable state of affairs is going to come crashing down. US public debt is on a comparable level to Italy’s. And the only argument you hear from feminists is ‘more welfare for single mums’….’more taxing of men to support men-hating academia’….’more affirmative action to sexually and racially discriminate against white men’….’more financial incentives to break up the nuclear family’….’more disincentives for men to work hard and support a family, because this model is just oppression, you go girl!’

In other words, the feminist ideal is to systematically attack the very principles and people that made America great. Smart move?

This is the most peaceful, prosperous and technologically advancing state humanity has ever seen. It is better now than it was in 1950. It all happened within 100 years of accepting that women should make all decisions for themselves and view themselves as independent ends, not wives and mothers only.

In India, throughout the 20th century, the average lifespan increased in tandem with the ownership of a television set in each household.

First off, this is wrong. Scandinavia has always been slated toward egalitarianism simply because It was a harsh environment with low populations and somebody had to keep order when the men go aviking. Women carried their weight because of necessity and they were allowed to divorce, own property, etc. That’s a big reason that even though it’s batshit insane with it’s ideology, women in Nordic countries don’t yearn for complete and udder female domination and are more about equal rights. Showing pure alpha dominance doesn’t work up there as well as it does in the US for a reason.

“The world is better with women earning for themselves and in public life.”

Again, straight up wrong. You’re advocating that the world is a better place when you take basically the only thing that 80 percent of the men have going for them and giving it to women. Thus leaving beta males with giant blue balls leading down the twin diabolical paths of either dropping out herbivorism or joining the white knight supplicating effeminate beta army for a chance of the scraps.

Who does women earning for themselves really benefit? Most women of average to above average SMV? Absolutely not. It creates bitter husks of females destroyed by them giving up their pussy in a futile attempt to lock down high status males who ironically because of the same paradigm shift would rather put their balls in a vice instead of getting married.

Which leads to the actual high value woman. She even can’t get married as easily to an alpha because of his options and natural want for variety. It doesn’t benefit her one iota because in the past the alpha, at least in the public eye, he was all hers.

So who does it benefit? It benefits ugly women and disgusting lesbians, who were locked out of getting the resources themselves due their genetic defects and thus gamed to system to make it happen. These women were brilliant. They told the normal women that something was wrong with the world and they deserved more and we all know that indignation is chick crack. You tell a woman she deserves something and she was wronged and of course she’s going to believe you. “More stuff? Yes Please!”. So now the same girl that would be a kept woman now has to work a shitty office job that is married to some man she hates due to feminization of said man and her remembering alpha cock while the fat harpy that would have been a spinster or married a construction worker is smiling because she can afford a guicci bag whereas in the past no one would have gave two shits about her.

The other entity that made out like a bandit. Corporations. They now get to split wages down the middle with the increase of new workers.

Do you imagine the west became the pinnacle of civilization because for the past century, women were convinced they should be working and voting and dropping their kids off at day care?

Pull your head out of your cunt, you imbecile. Pick up a History book. Learn something about the Great Men. Learn something about the Great Books written by Great Men.

The world is increasingly worse with women in the workplace, lowering wages for men, fucking their bosses and co-workers, leaving their babes in the hands of careless state workers.

Women are only capable of working en masse in an already developed first world nation. Only capable of complaining about their imagined lack of freedom from the comforts given to them by the men they bitch about.

Do you imagine we live to 80 because women go to work and fuck their bosses? You idiot.

The problem with most people esp. those outside of the natural elites in their own field of niche is that they use terms and esp. terms which has multipolar meaning and implication depending on the context and they have no clue about what they actually mean when they use those words say like “ civilization “. They are essentially confused or confuse malleable minds.

The reason you like Swedish “ civilization “ as the foremost symbol of “ civilization “ is because you get lots of fancy goods from the sky without actually working for it or understanding where and how it came from or about. ( I don’t mean work like working in 9-5 or even working in the modern world ). Which is ultimately the central reason for the downfall of Swedish society.

The “ empowerment “ of women has nothing, nada, zilch to do with building or reaffirmation of civilization ( or whatever they may mean by that term ). In fact it is pretty much a red siren signal of end times for that “ civilization “ in whatever form feminism shows up and it has shown up in previous great “ civilizations “. The reason for the rise of civilization is essentially having lots of virtue, which are intrinsic qualities found only in dudes, (women are child bearers i.e. mothers, wives, lovers, hoes and were traded or stolen as like other products like horses or sheep or goats etc etc) / ( essentially dudes build society/civilization ). whoever has more virtue gets to build a grand civilization and then they all get fat and happy and one of the many common stupid mistakes they do is empower their women and actually listen to their stupid infantile shit and make policies centered around their whims and moronic opinions and bam soon enough there goes the neighborhood.

IOW actuality is the opposite of your thesis.

I gotta turn in folks, i’m getting old. el sid out. I’ll post supporting material later if people can’t grasp what i am saying in the aggregate and start kvetching.

Given that essentially all the resources you have access to & everything built around you was originally obtained, created & organized by men, & the major founding management, productivity, psychological & political discourses were born in the minds of men, I’d suggest the correlation is the reverse – developed nations afford women better living conditions and more opportunities. Suggest you consider religious, social and political ideology together with any absence of women’s rights in defining the woes of a basket case nation.

The First Peoples of Australia, the most prosperous & oldest surviving cultures in the world incorporating hundreds of ‘nations’ and language groups, have had extremely well defined roles for women as mothers and wives for over 60,000 years. Want to meet a happy woman? Go search out some indigenous women living a traditional family lifestyle. Your ancestral foremothers hunt & slaughter big game and defend their tribes against other males? Nope. Your nation’s grandmothers put their lives on the line in a submarine, a tank or in the trenches to defend the lives of millions from tyranny? Doubt it. Your nation’s great grandmothers risk their prosperity & that of their families to build businesses & a financial system that enables your sugardaddy to fund your indecisiveness? Not likely. Who are the expendables who have put their lives on the line to bring about development? Check the numbers, you’ll find it has always been predominantly men, with a few women tinkering at the edges & supporting men on the home front. I know it’s hard to think & it hurts your inflated head, but you’ll need to dig a little further than the cry of women’s rights.

Also consider whether women, as a sex, are ‘agents’ or ‘objects’. If you claim to be an ‘object’, you are by your very nature without your own mental faculties & capable intelligence, disempowered & controlled by an agent acting on you. If you claim to be an ‘agent’, then you have your own mental faculties, a capable intelligence & some significant control over your destiny, and over generations you are capable of pulling yourself out of squalor & into a better position. Clearly women are agents, & just as for western men, if you’re currently living in disempowerment, your sex shares a good deal of responsibility for that. In the US, where women now earn as much as men, are the predominant perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse (& while they heave their gasps of indignation how bout the manjaws indulge a little reading on the facts – refer to terms ‘meta-analysis’ & ‘peer reviewed evidence’) & have the legal system perversely in their favour, whatever ‘rights’ they claim to be fighting for that they don’t already have, whether they like it or not, feminists are fighting to be men, not women.

“”The First Peoples of Australia, the most prosperous & oldest surviving cultures in the world incorporating hundreds of ‘nations’ and language groups, have had extremely well defined roles for women as mothers and wives for over 60,000 years.””

Yes, but hardly anyone gives a crap about the current plight of the Australian Aboriginals (here is a hint; it’s an unholy mess) because as a race they just aren’t pretty enough.

The truth us that in Australia, any non aboriginal man settling for an aboriginal woman is considered to be scraping the bottom of the barrel and you simply do not see white and aboriginal couplings in the capital cities.

”So, listen to me. My speech will be much shorter than yours. I want to tell you this: all that you told me now was very stupid and banal. Do you understand me? It was stupid. It would be better to dispense with you, in this matter, but your family, your children and your kitchen cannot survive without a woman … a woman has only one main purpose in life: to be a wife and a mother … there is no, there was no, and there will not be any other ‘social purpose’ of a woman. This is all stupidity, senseless talk, and gibberish. All that you have told me here is nonsense, do you hear me? It was nonsense, and I am not going to say anything else to you.”

“CH is aligned with history, sure, but not with facts. Look at the countries where women are only expected to be wives and mothers. They are absolute crap. All of them- 100% of them.

And look at the countries where women are expected to act as independent humans first and foremost, and those countries are called the first world. Once Scandanavia expected women to be wives and mothers only. And back then it was crap too. Scandanavia was then equal to the third world now. Full of disease and violence and oppression.”

There reason countries that are more equal do better is not equality itself rather than the genetic make-up of the population. Afganistan is awful because of inbreeding, low IQ, etc. Scandinavia is great because of outbreeding, relative high IQ, etc. So for you to say that a societies level of advancement is decided by how it treats women is wrong, instead Id say that the the level of advancement correlates positively with how well women are treated.

“CH is aligned with history, sure, but not with facts. Look at the countries where women are only expected to be wives and mothers. They are absolute crap. All of them- 100% of them.”

But the people are happy inside. They have to fight to stay alive.

“And look at the countries where women are expected to act as independent humans first and foremost, and those countries are called the first world. Once Scandanavia expected women to be wives and mothers only. And back then it was crap too. Scandanavia was then equal to the third world now. Full of disease and violence and oppression.”

Now people live a posh life and their souls are dead. They have no idea of their own mortality.

Men, specifically white men, have created 98% of everything in the world. Women, when too many of them go into a field, destroy it. Those are the facts, contrary to your leftist/feminist/communist/lesbian hallucinations.

You’re basically right, but I’d point out that, in terms of personality traits, men and women in Scandinavia score MORE differently than men and women in some less progressive societies, and women in Scandinavia do still focus less on achievement in the workplace and more on family/childrearing, than men.

Women should have equal opportunities and should be encouraged to work, but if allowed to pursue their own hopes and dreams, I think most women will naturally gravitate to somewhat lower-status, lower earning professions. In terms of my personal life, I wouldn’t want to be with a stay at home mom, personally, but neither would I want to be with someone who earned as much as me.

In all this time, you’ve missed the point. This is a war between men and women and only one side can win. In the USA today the country is “absolute crap” for a white good-guy beta male who has done everything right as modeled for him by his father and grandfather. Do you get that? I’m not talking about omega dweebs who can’t look people in the eye. I’m talking about what is now derided as “beta” and made fun of here and on every TV show includes “real men” who are not totally socially inept but just do the right thing….to live sexless lives while the girls go for the douchebags.

Look at the countries where women are only expected to be wives and mothers. They are absolute crap. All of them- 100% of them.

Really?????? How about, say, South Korea and Japan? I have never been there, but I do know they are very patriarchal and not exactly third-world crap. At least in this case, you are the one not aligned with the facts. Another monkey wrench to your argument: Let’s follow your “logic” of observing (translation: correlating) and look at the US over time; the US declined as it became more feminized. True, correlation does not necessarily imply causation (so much for your “logic”; CH analyzes the reasons society has decayed, BTW, and does not merely point out correlations), but it may hold clues to why things are the way they are.

I think the purpose of a woman is what she wants to, many like being mothers, however some of them really would want a career, your true nature is what you want. If some women really like to work, is because that desire comes from deep inside them, therefore is their own nature.

From Wikipedia:
In a report on the television programme Complément d’enquête (in its episode devoted to the controversial French humorist Dieudonné M’bala M’bala), broadcast on the French television channel France 2 on 20 September 2004, Alain Soral said:

“ When you’re talking with a Frenchman who is a Zionist Jew, and you start to say, well maybe there are problems coming from your side, maybe you might have made a few mistakes, it’s not always the fault of other people if no-one can stand you wherever you go… because that’s basically their general history, you see… for 2,500 years, every time they settled somewhere, after about fifty years or so, they get kicked. You’d think that’s strange! It’s as though everyone is wrong except them. And the guy will start shouting, yelling, going mad… you won’t be able to carry on with the conversation. Which, to sum it all up, tells you that there’s a psychopathology with Zionism Judaism, something that verges on mental illness… ”

F. Dostoevsky had some English but I seriously doubt that he did not need some help cranking out this particular mini-screed. After all, the word “gibberish”” is not safe for beginners to handle.
Besides,the Russian that changed my life the most was Turgenev. He is why I became a Doctor. His Best character, BAZAROV, appearing in his best Novel,,, “fathers and Sons.” Was a Medical Doctor who cared ultimately about some things while caring Fuck All about the Rest. So, there was a way, afterall.
I wanted to name my son Bazarov, but it would not have changed anything. He has changed his own name on a regular basis since he had the legal right to do so.

I think the evidence is fairly clear. In NW Europe, women competed to hold and keep the lifetime devotion of a husband. Fairly similar in NE Asia. I.E. red/blonde hair in women, blue eyes, neonotenous characteristics absent Black women for example.

Feminist X is correct as far as it goes, that women’s position in society is an arrow and cause of either poverty: patriarchal polygamy = poverty. Women’s independence (up to a point absent total independence) equals wealth creation.

But the key is the nuclear family. The nuclear family allows and creates wealth creation and husbanding, that creates and husbands (that word again) wealth and wealth transfers from one generation to the next. And that nuclear family requires women to choose mostly independently, outside of massive extended family kin-networks, a husband and … stick with him.

It does NOT indicate a cock carousel. It requires independent women who choose independently, but if they choose poorly or stupidly, pay a penalty (their kids and themselves live a life of poverty). There are consequences for unleashed female hypergamy (basically poverty and semi-starvation at best). And female hypergamy is kept in check mostly by older women who slut-shame.

This was Western Europe and Whites through say, 1950. Women had the right to vote in Wyoming in the 1860s and also New Zealand. Wyoming elected female Judges and Legislators in the 1870s. BUT … they could not rely on a massive welfare state to make stupid choices in fathers for their kids work out OK, free-riding on everyone else.

The ability of women to play this game will last only as long as the welfare state money does.

Most women always choose poorly and don’t realize their mistakes until it’s too late. As we’ve seen over the past century, they can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.

What this blog and a few others are teaching those with the brains to see it, is they must be led to make the right decision. They must be tricked into making it.

I say tricked because forcing them results in resentment.

Unfortunately, there is no fix for our situation. the tides we’re seeing have been seen before, and only the truly Elite will survive intact. And even they will only last a few generations before their descendants will have to learn it all the hard way, having convinced themselves they know better and the old way is the wrong way.

There is no old way. There is no new way. It’s all been done before and it will all be done again, in other generations, in other nations. On other Earths, over and over until the end of time.

Do you think Rome is referenced due to some misguided nostalgia? They saw it all, over and over, for close to 2000 years. Their reach influenced the savage tribesmen who would found their own nations and their own empires who’s violent conquests and struggles all led to your sitting here, reading these words on this screen.

Feminist X is correct as far as it goes, that women’s position in society is an arrow and cause of either poverty: patriarchal polygamy = poverty. Women’s independence (up to a point absent total independence) equals wealth creation.

Wrong. As someone astutely pointed out on Return of Kings, polygamy is actually instigated by women, not men, as women compete for a small group of alpha males. Monogamy is what results when men run things.

And FemX is wrong about societies where women have more power also have more wealth. She has it exactly ass-backwards; women have more power because the society was wealthier, and men got soft and decided to fob some of their responsibilities off on the women. When women actually do get power, however, the society hits its peak and starts declining as women start making a mess out of everything (like voting liberal Democrat).

It’s actually fairly amazing how many long dead philosophers, writers and otherwise ancient social historians all seem to come to similar, if not outright the same, conclusions about women; essentially a soft form of misogyny wherein, if women are left to her own devices, she will ruin herself, her family and the society that tolerates her antics. They do not necessarily write in hatred of women, but there seems to be a blunt and universal recognition in their writings that women are not on the level of men.

I remember laughing pretty hard when I first read Beyond Good and Evil in High School (teenager into Nietzsche, so edgy right?) and it got to his views on women. Freddy’s not a soft misogynist by any means.

Re-reading some of his works lately though, and this quote from the collection I have (from The Will To Power, according to wikipedia) gave me some chills;

“Finally, woman! One half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant… She needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, lovin, and being humble as divine, or better, she makes the strong weak. She rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong… Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the “powerful”, the “strong”, the men…”

“When men become as women, and women as men, will you know the end days are upon you.”

There is a lot of room between “when women become as men” and women being restricted to being wives and mothers who are forced to do as men say, so this post would best be re-tagged as “ugly half-truths.”

I often accuse WNs of subscribing to the logic that “race is wrong, therefore everything is wrong,” but the same can apply to the manosphere, although we might reword it for emphasis, something like “Gender is wrong, therefore everything about women is wrong.” In reality, there is a great deal that is not wrong about either; there is a great deal that is right, and a great deal that is better than it ever was at any time in history.

Sexual realists like to say that if it up were up to women mankind never would have progressed beyond the Stone Age. There may be some truth to that, though it cannot be known for certain. But we might equally say that if it were up to drunken Russia pessimists mankind never would have progressed beyond the 19th century.

There are a few matriarchal societies who still exist and have no system of writing and have made no technological advancements in centuries.

Hatred, envy, desire, love, the desire to control and destroy all that stands in your way is what drives this world. It’s what brought Man out of an Ice Age, from using rocks to inventing flying machines, utilizing materials scooped out of stones to be altered for Man’s use.

Angry killers have made this world, and when there’s nothing but dust, angry killers will be the last to inhale it.

Now look, I don’t mind at all if you troll me – I welcome all comers – but for your own good I recommend you learn the basics and patiently work your way up to the big leagues. Better for the soul that way.

“But we might equally say that if it were up to drunken Russia pessimists mankind never would have progressed beyond the 19th century.”

If you are talking about equal rights than Russia got them MUCH earlier than the other world-in 1917 together with the revolution.
If you are referring to Russian backwardness during imperial times,a myth created by communists and happily supported by the west, than read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_scientists and look up papers on economic development in Russia in the beginning of 20 century.

Regarding the “drunken”. The consumption of alcohol before the “equality” and communism in Russia was lower than in western europe.

It’s communism,with its equality,genocide of men and the matriarchy (modern russia and ukraine is a matriarchy too;only a moron won’t see it) which made russia a drunken backward state.

I’m totally on board with the hostility for MODERN feminists tenets (i.e. embracing fatness, embracing sluttiness, spouting off about how men are taught to be rapists, scoring birth control and other goodies at the taxpayers’ expense, defining anything and everything as “sexual harassment,” restricting comedians and free speech in general, wildly overstating the gender wage gap, spreading blue pill lies about gender dynamics, aligning with all forms of radical leftist nonsense). But with that said, what problem do you guys have with women entering the corporate world should they so choose? Seems like an individual choice to me.

Mother: $25,000 one-time payment. The child would be legally the fathers as it used to be. The woman can either stay in and take care of the kid (enroll in “Wife” program above plus bonus $5,000/year), or she can get out and the man will employ a nurse/nanny/au-pair to do her job.

As it currently stands; Wife/Mother = 50% – 90% of man’s total net worth. 50% is fine provided the woman helped build the family business; but is a total scam if she did not and the production all came from the man’s side.

Oh yeah, and screw housework equity. The only reason the house needs to be that frikin’ big is because of the woman’s nesting instincts. I don’t want to take a page from the Libs, but Low Carbon Footprint ‘yo.

“. . .screw housework equity.”
That there is an inequity in housework is founded on a fundamental lie: that necessary household chores such as cleaning the gutters, mowing the lawn, maintaining the furnace, etc are men’s work and therefore don’t count as housework.

That under a patriarchal social structure it is men who spend most of their labor making and paying for the house and everything in it is so far removed from the thoughts of most women that they can’t even make up a lie about it.

Cleaning gutters and the like are house work so they are also women’s work. When women go out to have a career, the family really does suffer. Do you think it is a good thing to hand your baby over to a stranger to care for the baby, while you go out and earn a living? That stranger is not going to care for the baby the way a mother can.
Women who don’t go and have a “career” are not supposed to be lazy. They are supposed to be hard working and resourceful. I don’t believe that a woman can have a challenging career and also be the best mother and wife she can be. I’m not saying women shouldn’t ever work, times have changed,, and for financial purposes women sometimes need to go out and seek employment, to contribute. But people look down now on work that is traditionally for women. In my opinion there is no shame in a woman being a maid, cook, Au pair, beautician, hair dresser,, or any other job that is traditionally for women. In this way women can contribute to the household financially, but also still be able to be a good mother and wife, Having a challenging and stressful man’s job takes this away from women. But now people like to look down on you if you work this kind of job. But it doesn’t really matter what others think, because a woman who has good values will raise children well and her husband will be happy with her, she will not compromise her role as a woman. It is a grave shame when women place career above caring for a family, and even for women who work…it is a shame for a man to come home and there not be dinner waiting.
A man normally has a lot of responsibility to be the bread winner, but when he comes home from work his work should be done for the day. A woman’s work in the house is never really done because she then serves her husband.

I have seen a few husbands, not many, wash dishes and it has made me cringe, and it has made me wonder why the woman doesn’t feel embarrassed. For a man to do the work a woman must be doing reflects very badly on the woman.
A man and woman have their work, and when the two become confused and mixed up, the result will never be pretty. There is a reason why men have always had typically higher IQ’s and larger brains( I know women are going to be angry I said that), to go out and think and work. And more physically strong. There is a reason God made women with breasts, they are to feed babies not just to look nice. We have deviated from the basic truth of the difference in men and women’s roles, and sadly, if not reversed, the ones who will suffer most are the children.

As a proud Feminist woman, i think work is also for us, if we are supposed to be more housewives, then why some women prefer careers? doesn’t her inner feelings and desire for career come naturally as a reflection of her true self? i don’t think is feminist brainwashing. the fact that for some women the desire to work is stronger than to raise children, show us that her feelings for work are bigger, how can that happen if we are supposed to be programmed for children? that is a plot hole, washing dishes is not our work by default because in first place there are no dishes in nature, we humans created those.

While I respect your decision, I don’t really think that it is natural for a woman to not feel maternal, and broody. Eventually, even career women feel this, they may fight it for a long time, but there will inevitably come a point where a woman’s desire to be a mother will surface. Sadly, for some women this happens at too late an age, and by that point fertility has declined and even if she does manage to conceive naturally, there is a high risk of birth defects. I think that women who are career minded are a product of their environment, I don’t think this is a natural desire, it is manufactured desire.
I’m not saying women shouldn’t have intellectual interests, this varies from individual to individual. I have many interests, but it doesn’t mean that we should become so wrapped up in them so as to forget our most important role. If it isn’t natural for a woman to want children, and more women start to realize this, what will happen? There will be no future generations. This is selfish. We are called to go forth and multiply.
I think this is a woman’s most basic natural desire, to have babies. I understand some women now put career before this, but at what price?

And I’m not saying that to make women feel oppressed in any way. I love women, I’m just trying to say we have our place, and we should feel honored to have such a wonderful role. . Embracing this would mean much less stress for both genders. Men and women can’t live in harmony together when they are both trying to compete for the best jobs, who makes the most money, who has a more successful career.etc. It’s dysfunctional, and it turns men and women against each other. Both have so very different roles which compliment each other beautifully.
Like I said in another comment, the Dostoevsky quote is over-simplified, it has truth to it, but we know that we also have personalities, interests, and talents, which come after the job of mother and wife.

I wash dishes when my woman has failed to keep the kitchen in order, and I wish to cook something. It is a potent insult and sign of my brewing wrath. This happens rarely. I make exceptions after the births of children.

I don’t like feminism but I think the quote is very over-simplified. Women can be more than mothers and wives, it is of course what should take priority, it’s the most important job for women, but women can also be so much more. Even if men didn’t need women to mother their children, and be their wife, this world wouldn’t be so nice without women. We are encouraging, supporting, loving, resourceful, warm. – at best. Sure we have negative traits too, but who doesn’t. We may not be leaders, we are followers, but that is beautiful. Woman is a helper to man in so many ways, a wife can help a husband in anything.
Look at examples like Mother Teresa, she never birthed her own children or married, but she was a wonderful woman who helped others so much.

The quote sounds cold, like women are just for this one purpose and nothing else. I personally don’t have strong opinions about voting, or have career-ambition, but I would like to be encouraging and a help for others, after being a wife and mother.

It’s kinda ironic that the main qualifications I’m looking for in my wife-hunting is someone who can bust her ass in the workplace. That’s because I run a family business and I need someone who can pick up the slack in case I’m put out of commission. If it takes a lot of hard work just to extract some wealth from an asset you bet I’ll be more than willing to share. So sure I’ll hand you 50% of the ore, you need to smelt it first though.

Being “encouraging, supporting, loving, etc.” is not the impression I get from talking to men 20 years into their marriages. These traits are usually what hooks a guy into marriage, i.e. before the ring, not necessarily after the ring is placed. A lot of the escorts industry is actually driven by guys not needing sex but just having someone supportive to kiss them since their wives stopped their wifely-ness. So in other words, I firmly believe these behaviors can be programmed. Especially since we all realize a lot of this “submission” by a woman is a direct response to a man gaming her. No gaming (i.e. no attraction), no submission, simple as that.

I’m convinced the best partnerships are one where it’s almost like two dudes having an honest, honorable bromance and one of them just flips polarity and comes with a vagina. In other words, marry your best friend of the opposite sex, tingles be damned. If there’s one side effect I appreciate from feminism’s quest to destroy gender roles is that it’s much easier for me to spot bro-like girls the kind you can be yourself around and she’s being productive since she doesn’t need romance all the time.

“I’m convinced the best partnerships are one where it’s almost like two dudes having an honest, honorable bromance and one of them just flips polarity and comes with a vagina. In other words, marry your best friend of the opposite sex, tingles be damned. If there’s one side effect I appreciate from feminism’s quest to destroy gender roles is that it’s much easier for me to spot bro-like girls the kind you can be yourself around and she’s being productive since she doesn’t need romance all the time.”

The funniest comment of this thread. So you’re looking for a guy who just happens to have a vagina?

Plenty of those women around. Shouldn’t be a problem at all. Fat and hairy ones too.

You misunderstood Dostoevsky. 1) no one in his right mind would deny girls & women right to higher education & professions. For instance, Barbara McClintock was not carved out to be a wife & mother. But, this is an exception, not normative behavior. 2) if, say, 10-30% women opt out of motherhood & wife role, then society is destined to collapse. For instance, a society can function with 3% homosexuals; with 30%, it is doomed.

I didn’t explain myself correctly. Mother and wife come first. They are the the most important roles for us, above anything else. But there is more to women of course, Men desire to be leaders, wouldn’t it be a little pointless leading when nobody is willing to follow you? Women are amazing followers and supporters.

“Made a big dent in that Third World poverty and disease thing, did she?”
I wouldn’t say she made a big dent, but she certainly did her part to expand it.
Remember that her mission was to oppose birth control among India’s poor, resulting in the very supply of the people she “helped.”

“We are encouraging, supporting, loving, resourceful, warm. – at best” I will take your general naivete about this as your result of being a foreigner. Western women do NOT embrace these ideals anymore. They prefer other adjectives- strong, independent, resourceful, etc. Sort of like men, right? When women start being those qualities again, en masse, places like CH may no longer need to exist.

It is the law of diminishing returns. Black people work the same way. Yes, there is one teachable “thwack” for every 9 feral pavement apes, but you see, those are not averages anyone is willing to accept. Likewise, if 50% of women are the latter sort, why bother?

I want to stick my finger up your ass and smell it. It’s not that it’s Woman’s only purpose. It’s that it’s their most important purpose and the only one for which they are truly needed. Men can’t give birth and nurse babies. Only women can do that.

I want to rip the seed out of you and give it to the world. It’s not that it’s man’s only purpose…it is the most important purpose for which they are needed. Women can’t create something that doesn’t exist and then go out and make it happen. Only men can do that.

Everything will start to get better when all men listen to Dostoevsky and don’t even wast the time or electrons arguing with the cunts. Who cares what they think, they don’t matter. A women who won’t wife and mother is like a dog that won’t hunt. You fill in the rest.

In response to feministx, in an oil-based industrial society, males do the oil rig work/plumbing/woodcraft/building etc.. All the real jobs. Paper ass jobs don’t count. All those Nordic countries are rich due to oil abundance, not due to feminist schenanigans. I have met a few women who are outstanding, but the volume of men who are such is much greater.

On another note, the UK is finished, btw. Time to check out before the ship sinks (will take about 30-40 years to reach completion). English speaking Western countries with better oil reserves are good places to go (Canada, Aus,NZ). Or Germany (has not offshored its manufacturing).

it really is getting close to end of life as we know it enjoy yourselves get some good pussy fuck that shit raw love for the fuck of it
too bad it always gets old im rootin for the end he he he
don’t know how many more bitches I can fall in love with only to have it get stale nor can I come to terms that it is so good and then goes bad and I get tired of it every fucking time

He had the biggest burdens put on him by the Germans while he was ill. He gave people what little food he had. He stayed up with people to hear confessions. He was in a boxcar with no food or water for 15 days keeping the other men in good spirits and it took a shot of carbonic acid to kill him.

It is a real eye opener for a guy raised within the Cathedral to read Dostoevsky and see how the great Russian authors of 150 years ago were contending with a lot of the same pie-eyed ideas about men and women as today’s Left. This isn’t GBFM on the level of Homer, but still well worth it. My favorite example is the character Andrey Semyonovitch Lebeziatnikov out of Crime and Punishment, whose basic job in the novel appears to be to naively spout other radicals’ ideas that seem not unlike the liberal e-rags of our time. He advocates people living on new communes where he believes fighting between people will be eliminated, and his new model of marriage which does not include sexual fidelity nor jealousy about it, feminine modesty and chastity are prejudices, and lot of other such stuff. You can’t read it without thinking same sh!t, different century. Liberals now don’t seem to understand (and I doubt they ever will) that almost nothing about their ideas is new. Free love and polyamory and matrilineal societies and single parenthood and denying tribalism and all that have been tried, failed, and discarded. Embrace lack of authority, lack of cultural memory, lack of strong group identity (embracing diversity as your identity is basically like calling darkness a color), and you end up repeating the same old mistakes.
Long live the Patriarchy.

Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths. That is a fascinating thought.

In broader socio-economic terms, we have given women the opportunity to build on their weaknesses (ability to compete against men) and discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility). They compete through artifices of fairness and inclusion that are borne on the backs of an ever-dwindling pool of male supporters.

We have weakened society as a whole by building on women’s weaknesses in attempts to make them the equal of men, rather than encouraging them in their natural strengths. And while this charade is going on, men are encouraged to adopt feminine attitudes and lifestyles at the expense of their own natural strengths, now deemed unnecessary in the new gender-neutral economy.

look at all the money being made in the oil boom in the middle of the country. its a full blown cock fest literally some towns are importing strippers due to the lack of females. One of my buddies is up there now says literally its all men he makes 2k per week

There must be something inherently dark and flawed with man’s composition that allows him, compels him, to pervert the natural order of things. Why do we insist on weakening our societies and deeming it progress? Is it mere insidiousness played out by a few villains, or is it something that is altogether unavoidable in any human societal endeavor? Some kind of fatalistic march towards self-destruction that springs up when things are “too right”?

I think I have an explanation, but this is one of those times when the fact my first language is French limits my ability to do it well, or as well as I wish I could

anyway here I go,

The more evolved and civilized a society is , the more it can afford to support the weak and the dysfunctional.

Back when we did not have modern inventions doing most of our work for us, everyone in the village had to help. no one could support someone who was handicapped or mentally deranged or simply lazy.

modern civilization has kind of inverted survival of the fittest, the weaker you are, the more fucked up you are, the more society will support you, keep you fed and sheltered and help you have kids so you can transmit your bad genes

this is causing the race to become weaker, the percentage of people who do not contribute is growing

It seems like a noble thing to do to help the weak, the sick, the dysfunctional, the lazy, but they are only making us weaker, they are using a lot of ressources that a shrinking number of able people pay for trough their taxes

Just one tiny example, in the 1950s they had begun sterilizing the mentally insane, then the liberals fought this because it is ” inhumane” so now the crazies can have babies and transmit their bad genes

Modern medecine even though it is wonderful also contributes in weakening the race.

people who in previous centuries would have died from their illness or defect are now saved by modern medecine, but then they transmit their weak genes

it may be the nice thing to do to help everyone, but it is only nice in the short term, in the long term it is weakening the race in thousands of ways

it may seem cruel to think this way but it is logical, and it is how the world has been for millions of years until we humans began changing things.

no matter if one believes in God or in the theory of evolution, things have always been cruel this way; the weak dies and does not transmit his bad genes

Empathy like everything is better in moderation, empathy is killing us as a race and as a civilization because it has reached a pathological level

giving citizenship to illegal immigrants is another example of doing something that feels good in the short term but in the long term destroys the host.

There has been a narrowing between the sexes.Technological change is probably the biggest factor in this gender narrowing. Now that we have machines doing so much of the heavy lifting men in the traditional sense have less to do. However, this is a temporary shift as technology will soon begin to replace many female admin and service jobs. in addition all this delayed child birth will soon become unfavorable as so many children are coming out with health problems. Just give it some time things will balance out again.

Besides, at the end of the day what I see is women and men seeking each other. Poor CH focuses too much on the negatives. By and large I see many couples everytime I go out. The marriage age has been pushed back but the economy is playing a huge role. Just the other day I saw a buddy of mine who had moved out of his girlfriends place? Why? After 3 years of dating he saw he couldnt afford to get married and have a family. At first he played it off as “fuck this shit I dont need this in my life I just want to chill and not worry” but after a bit of prying he admitted that he’d love to have a family but is having so much trouble making a good living.

The carousel is definitely having an effect but the economy is the biggest factor.

And why is the economy bad? Progressive, left wing policies over decades have eroded this nation. The white knights on the right are enabling them and not standing up for tradition.

What should be an age of enlightenment, with our abilities as a species to travel into space, create global networks and super commuters – is rotting at the foundation. That rot is directly the result of broadened suffrage. Without an 18-year old voting age, without a women’s vote – they’re would be almost not of the rot. No Great Society, no Federal Reserve money printing fiat debacle, no NAFTA, no Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pushing home ownership on people who have no business buying a house.

The only way to get things back on track would be to curtail voting rights. There are many ways to do it, but the most responsible would be to limit the vote to married couples with children over the age of 35.

“And why is the economy bad? Progressive, left wing policies over decades have eroded this nation.”

Over simplification of a much more complex issue. Both left and right had their spending parties with the “right” and its military industrial complex and war mongering. How did those wars end up for the nation?

Lets also not forget the fall of communism has led to a breakdown in the old system and a birth of a new open economic system in much of the third world. Take Vietnam, which was a commie hell hole backwater which is now rapidly exploding in population and growth. China, which was a backwater turd bucket has ballooned to become the second largest economy in the world. Even mexico is giving the US competition.

Staying on top forever simply isn’t possible as other nations shall improve and take a bigger piece of the pie.

Leftwing policies have helped the country move forward as it as helped bring minority and female skills and abilities to the market. Both right and left have their good and bad. Problem with these sites is that everyone is hyperfocused on the bad from the left while neglecting the good that comes with it.

The populist right adhere to some rather daft economic absolutes that no amount of evidence can shake. And by daft I mean not so much that their policies would necessarily be horrible; rather they are daft in the expectations that populists have for those policies. Ah, but for this and this and that everyone would be absolutely wonderful. That is some serious economic naivete. Alas, the picture among the nuts on the left is scarce any different. I find it more perplexing when it occurs on the right since rightists style themselves hard-nosed realists; when it comes to certain economic issues, however, it becomes clear that they are not.

“Staying on top forever simply isn’t possible as other nations shall improve and take a bigger piece of the pie. ”

One thing, though, can safely be said and that’s that if national power is the criterion leftist has rule has been a national disaster.

Nostalgia to the old days of black and white photos when America was kicking ass is misplaced. This was a new country with vast untapped natural resources. A century later and a substantial amount of those resources have been consumed. Nonetheless, we are much better situated than the rest of the world with all the vast country we have.

We are not focused on what is bad about the left, the fact is that a lot of bad things in the last few decades have been coming from the left.

Tax payers having to part from their hard earned money so that slutty women will not have to pay for the pill; thank the left for that.

Half of illegal immigrants from Mexico on welfare ( Google it, I am not making this up ) which again honest citizen have to support trough heavy taxation; thank the left for that

The sub prime mortgage crisis that the Bush administration fought tooth and nail; thank the left for that

The black community having higher rates of teen pregnancies, illegitimate children, more crime, more violence and higher rates of unemployment than back in the 1950s; thank the Johnson administration – a left democrat one – for that, he made getting welfare easier for blacks, and this destroyed their community

I could go on for pages and pages, most of the bad changes in our society come from the left

Even if you get your news from the main stream media should know that most of those things are/were opposed by the right

the right is far from perfect but most bad things in recent decades are coming from the left, including the tyranny of feminists on white males, the unfair treatment of men in divorce courts etc etc

The sub prime mortgage crisis that the Bush administration fought tooth and nail; thank the left for that

That line is the biggest crock of shit. So poor poor lehman brothers with its 72 to 1 leverage ratio was taken down because it was forced to lend to minorities and poors? Please. Wall street went bananas and was enjoying the killing they were making securitizing the hell out of everything they could.

Federal bank bail outs were supported by BOTH parties. Continued federal reserve bank rape of savers is supported by BOTH parties, right and left.

Funny how so many “red pillers” are still asleep when it comes to economic matters, still viewing things through the prism of the false left-right paradigm.

You said “You need to watch this short video, you will see how many times the Bush administration tried to stop the subprime meltdown”

That statement is incorrect. Per the mainstream media video you linked, the Bush administration attempted to place stronger regulation and oversight over the GSE’s fannie and Freddie. Sure, more regulation on the GSEs would have prevented losses at said institutions, but still would have failed to prevent the subprime crisis as you incorrectly claim.

The GSE’s were actually late to the subprime origination game. Do your research as GSEs watched wall street make big dollars securitizing loans and wanted in the game.

Sure, the Bush administration attempted to reign in GSE loan funding but at the same time was instrumental in deregulating the financial sector. The same Alan Greenspan that speaks in your video was also praising the eloquently named Option Arm Mortgage loan.

Were the GSE’s responsible for AIG’s reckless underwriting of billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps? Were the GSE’s responsible for Lehmans use of Repo 105 to cook its books during reporting season? Or was it the GSE’s that forced Merrill Lynch to buy the stinking rotten turn known as Countrywide financial? No, sir. This was reckless greed pure and simple.

I read plenty of alternative financial media I suggest you do the same as you linked Faux news lol.

You know more about what went wrong after then you know how they got to this mess.

The sub prime thing was all about helping minorities who can not afford houses
it was an idea of the left and was imposed by the left.

it did not matter to the left that lending money to people who are not able to pay or are too irresponsible to own a house did not make any sense.

it did not matter to the left that this would cause a crisis – as clearly shown in the video.

community organizers – leftists such as Obama – occupied banks and accused them of racism and did all sort of manipulation until the right- afraid of being called racist gave in.

I am not going to tell you the whole story it would take me hours.

I have saved about 80 pages of articles that describe how we got there not who did what after the collapse
If I have time tomorrow I will provide a few links to very detailed articles that explain clearly how we got to this mess,

you will discover things you have never even heard of

of course once everything exploded both sides filled their pockets. that is what people in power do no matter if they are liberals or conservatives.

but who caused the mess, how we got there is what has been hidden from the public

the left caused the mess, the left refused to admit this was an accident waiting to happen

you can call the video faux news but it only shows how immature you are.

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the “trickle-down” economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

… … …

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

… … …

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that’s worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

… … …

noquarterusa.net

Barack’s Wall Street Problem is Now America’s

By Larry JohnsongravatarcloseAuthor

Let’s start with the numbers. Why is a first term Senator pulling down almost $300,000 a year from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Countrywide Financial, and Washington Mutual? He has not even completed his fourth year in the Senate and received a total of $1,093,329.00 from these eight companies and their employees. (all data from OpenSecrets.org). John McCain’s numbers, according to OpenSecrets.org for the period 1990-2008 (i.e., 18 years worth of data) only collected $549,584.00. In other words, Barack is receiving $273,582.25 (and 2008 is not over) per year while McCain raised a paltry $30,532.44.

Want another shocker? Barack Obama has received more from one source–Goldman Sachs $542,252.00–than McCain has from all of the companies combined. Who the hell is more beholden to lobbyists? And why does a junior Senator from Illinois rate this kind of dough?

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

“The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It’s untrue.

Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn’t have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

… … …

I am going to stop here but
I have over 80 pages of this.

Bush was not to blame, the Democrats are.

those are the facts.

you have seen Democrats on video refuse to admit something should be done, I have dozens of articles, what more do you need???

Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” (video available here [1], relevant section at 2:45).

Whether he knew it or not, Clinton was going against virtually all press outlets that have been pointing fingers at Republicans since this crisis began, and likely much to the dismay of such folk actually agreed with a Fox News segment aired on Tuesday’s “Special Report” (video embedded right):

One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren’t the juggernauts they’d later be.

While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie’s and Freddie’s rules.

In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that “more Americans should own their own homes.” He meant it.

Clinton saw home ownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin’s Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, “made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder.” Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of “diversity” in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

“Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance,” wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

But those rules weren’t enough.

Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

Clinton’s HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, “made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis,” the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often “no doc” and “no income” loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.

Worse still was the cronyism.

Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.

Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.

The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.

The end of the rhetorical daze perhaps. The sun and the moon will keep their time just fine. Every civilization feminizes with comforts and wealth despising the very discipline that was responsible for its arrival. Even the most famous for the contempt of luxury:

” When once the love of silver and gold had crept into the city, closely followed by greed and parsimony in the acquisition of wealth and by luxury, effeminacy, and extravagance in the use and enjoyment of it, Sparta fell away from most of her noble traits, and continued in a low estate that was unworthy of her down to the times when Agis and Leonidas were kings. ”

The quality of these trees, green height; of the sky, shining, of
water, a clear flow; of the rock, hardness
And reticence: each is noble in its quality. The love of freedom
has been the quality of Western man.

There is a stubborn torch that flames from Marathon to Concord,
its dangerous beauty binding three ages
Into one time; the waves of barbarism and civilization have
eclipsed but have never quenched it.

For the Greeks the love of beauty, for Rome of ruling; for the
present age the passionate love of discovery;
But in one noble passion we are one; and Washington, Luther,
Tacitus, Aeschylus, one kind of man.

And you, America, that passion made you. You were not born
to prosperity, you were born to love freedom.
You did not say ‘en masse,’ you said ‘independence.’ But we
cannot have all the luxuries and freedom also.

Freedom is poor and laborious; that torch is not safe but hungry,
and often requires blood for its fuel.
You will tame it against it burn too clearly, you will hood it
like a kept hawk, you will perch it on the wrist of Caesar.

But keep the tradition, conserve the forms, the observances, keep
the spot sore. Be great, carve deep your heel-marks.
The states of the next age will no doubt remember you, and edge
their love of freedom with contempt of luxury.

Feminism is bad on all fronts, it is bad for men, it is bad for women, it is bad for society, but most of all it is bad for CHILDREN!

Women cannot work without giving up something. The body of a woman is meant to spend the reproductive years in a cycle of pregnancy and breastfeeding that only ends with menopause. A woman constantly with child like this cannot work, and having women in the workforce is only possible with BIRTH CONTROL which is destroying Western society and KILLING OFF THE WHITE RACE.

Women can only work by restricting births and OUTSOURCING ALL HOME ACTIVITIES. Our economy has been completely restructured so that women don’t have to raise their own children. If women don’t do their domestic duties, someone else must do them, as they must be done! And nobody can do them as well as a mother and wife herself. Childrearing outsourced to strangers in daycares and public schools. Cooking outsourced to expensive restaurants or cheap fast food and processed rubbish.

Are the teachers who spend all day with their students oppressed by the patriarchy? Are the daycare staff? Then why are the mothers themselves, who raise their own children at home?

Why do they want women to work en masse? Because they care about women? Because women are satisfied by work? No, they want more consumers that can afford to purchase useless junk to line their pockets. A woman at home with her babies is not out working to earn money to buy stuff. They also want to destroy deep family bonds. People who don’t get their sense of identity from their relationships with their blood kin are disconnected and lonely, and therefore easier to manipulate. They fill the void in their souls with the reigning religion of materialism. Our capitalist society is horrible, where only work that is paid is considered valuable, and people build their sense of self-worth from the stupid things they buy.

Most of all, feminism has destroyed natural roles in marriage and created an artificial and meaningless type of relationship.

I can’t help but see the women who want to work as women who just do not like children, even their own. If the thought of being with them all day is so horrible. I think our society actually hates children. When I hear a woman complain about the right to work, I can’t help but see it as them not wanting to be with their children and wanting the right to get time away from them. I really don’t understand why a woman would want that.

Feminism is only able to exist in a wealthy (increasingly decadent) society. As was mentioned before, poor societies cannot afford feminism. Feminism does not increase wealth or productivity – it feeds off of it, like a parasite. Therefore, a poor society which attempted to adopt feminism would die immediately. Meanwhile, a rich society which adopts feminism will be bled slowly until it is too poor and unstable to afford feminism anymore. This is the state of the West today.

This reality is not limited to the definition of feminism as only the extremes of promoting “women’s rights”, such as slut walks, abortion, state-funded birth control, and no-fault divorce (the biggest misnomer of our time -“no-fault divorce actually means that it is ALWAYS the man’s fault, and he is punished accordingly). This reality occurs when women are granted ANY power at all other than to bear and raise children.

The idea is promoted that women are more independent than ever, becoming the primary breadwinners and out performing men in the workforce . Their dominant presence in academia is also cited as evidence of the ascendance of women. But this is all illusion. Women now dominate academia ONLY because academia has devolved into a watered-down, dumbed down, printer of worthless degrees. Our university systems HAD TO BE dumbed-down in order for the women to succeed, and, of course, the other side of the coin is that men now find academia worthless and avoid it.

Additionally, the workplace has been dumbed down in order to promote women. Byzantine regulations in the HR department, along with heavy-handed PC government agencies such as the EEOC are necessary in order to prevent the natural order from re-asserting itself and sending women back to the steno pool, or home. It is a maxim that when a woman reaches the MINIMUM level of competence at her work, she feels like she is a genius, at which point she ceases any real effort. Men, on the other hand, typically never stop trying to improve and innovate. Those that don’t are usually weeded out by those who do, unless HR or the EEOC prevents it. Women are actually a huge drag on the productivity of a business (unless that business REQUIRES the particular characteristics of women, such as the fashion industry), and, just as only rich nations can afford feminism, only successful, well-established businesses can afford female employees AND would only do so because it is mandated by the afore-mentioned EEOC or other such strongarm government interference.

Interestingly enough, my dads general manager of his company (basically highest ranked employee out of 80) is a woman. SHE is the only employee out of hundreds that has been able to effectively manage the rest of the staff and other management.

This woman has never stopped trying to better herself, has worked harder than practically anyone else, has been innovative and on her toes, has sacrificed for the company, still comes to work despite being hospitalized for stomach pains.

This woman has never stopped trying to better herself, has worked harder than practically anyone else, has been innovative and on her toes, has sacrificed for the company, still comes to work despite being hospitalized for stomach pains.

I’m currently reading The Idiot (by Dostoyevsky) and there is a scene in which a neighbor recites a poem by Pushkin about a “poor knight” to the title character, substituting the initials NFB for AMD (Ave Mater Dei) as the inscription on the knight’s shield, in order to make fun of him. NFB is the crazy woman to whom the title character is slavishly devoted. In relation to another recent post, I guess you could say Dostoyevsky was ahead of his time on the white knight thing too.

Matriarchal polygamy (i.e. voluntary harems for high status, highly attractive men as a result of lack of social restraints on sexuality) = poverty and civilizational stagnation

Matriarchal monogamy (i.e. much later marriage, unstable unions between women of somewhat higher social status on average) = less wealth creation and less civilizational progression than patriarchal monogamy

I’ve wanted to write a browser extension that does this for years. Across websites, too. And with the ability to apply other users’ hate to my own filters. For instance, I would accept without inspection the ignore filters of Zombie Shane, Greg Eliot, and Subway Masturbator.

CH, you should lay a shadow-ban on cunt-a-saursX. (Too her it would look like she can post fine, but no one else could see her comments. I’m sure there is a WordPress plug-in for that)

Then watch her hamster slowly rev-up as the spigot of male-attention dries up. As she descends into female hysteria, you can pick some choice quotes from her shadow-banned comments. That could provide content for a handful of articles down the road.

“CH, you should lay a shadow-ban on cunt-a-saursX. (Too her it would look like she can post fine, but no one else could see her comments. I’m sure there is a WordPress plug-in for that)”

I’m much rather he just tell her she cannot post unless we get to see her from the neck down nude. Her body is a hard 8+ which, really, is all we need to get from her at this point prior to dismissal. Keep that head cut off though…. christ.

A woman who doesn’t want kids is like a man who doesn’t want to work. Pointless and useless.

“It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness. A handsome woman talks nonsense, you listen and hear not nonsense but cleverness. She says and does horrid things, and you see only charm. And if a handsome woman does not say stupid or horrid things, you at once persuade yourself that she is wonderfully clever and moral.”
― Leo Tolstoy, The Kreutzer Sonata

“..Go round the shops in any big town. There are goods worth millions and you cannot estimate the human labor expended on them, and look whether in nine-tenths of these shops there is anything for the use of men.

All the luxuries of life are demanded and maintained by women. Count all the factories. An enormous proportion of them produce useless ornaments, carriages, furniture, and trinkets, for women. Millions of people, generations of slaves, perish at hard labor in factories merely to satisfy woman’s caprice. Women, like queens, keep nine-tenths of mankind in bondage to heavy labor…”
― Leo Tolstoy, The Kreutzer Sonata

“Women have made of themselves such an instrument for acting upon our sensuality that a man cannot quietly consort with a woman.

As soon as a man approaches a woman he succumbs to her stupefying influence and becomes intoxicated and crazy. I used formerly to feel uncomfortable and uneasy when I saw a lady dressed up for a ball, but now I am simply frightened and plainly see her as something dangerous and illicit. I want to call a policeman and ask for protection from the peril, and demand that the dangerous object be removed and put away. “Ah, you are laughing!” he shouted at me, “but it is not at all a joke. I am sure a time will come, and perhaps very soon, when people will understand this and will wonder how a society could exist in which actions were permitted which so disturb social tranquility as those adornments of the body directly evoking sensuality, which we tolerate for women in our society. why, it’s like setting all sorts of traps along the paths and promenades — it is even worse! why is gambling forbidden while women in costumes which evoke sensuality are not forbidden? They are a thousand times more dangerous!”
-― Leo Tolstoy, The Kreutzer Sonata

There is also a quote in there somewhere about male responsibilities as “being no great priviledge” talking about women wanting to enter the male sphere.

Personal anecdote confirming what we all know, that part of the reason government bureaucracies are expanding is so women can have jobs.

Just got transfered to my 7th probation officer in a year and they have ALL been female and under 30.

Side note – the number of women working in most trades below the glass floor remains statistically the same, near zero. In related news most women continue to believe their cars, faucets, and light switches work by “magic”.

“never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify.”

Personally I think women will diverge into two different genders. The maternal ones and the non-maternal ones. There is already so much difference between the two types it’s hard to recognize them both as women. The non-maternal women will start reproducing via parthenogenesis. Then we’ll have three genders on earth unless men diverge into two different genders as well: metrosexuals and woodsmen.